Nigel Dodds: The HMRC is encouraging more and more people to submit their returns via the internet, and as the deadline looms for this year a number of my constituents and businesses have reported problems with using the internet and downloading the various forms. Can the Paymaster General look into that and reassure people that it will be a smooth process?

Gordon Brown: The shadow Chancellor might want to stand to remind us of the remarks that he made only a few weeks ago congratulating Labour's success on macro-economic policy, telling us that Labour has improved the macro-economic management of the UK economy, and saying that there is public confidence in Labour's ability to manage the economy. That, I believe, is where the public are as well.

Gordon Brown: The greatest risk would be to pursue the policies of the shadow Chancellor. It is absolutely clear that he would put stability at risk: he is considering a flat tax; he would introduce a third fiscal rule; he would cut the new deal; and he would cut the child tax credit. Those are all policies that are giving stability and prosperity to the British economy, but the hon. Gentleman's policy would put that at risk. He likes to give the impression to the public that he is a policy-free zone, but the abolition of the new deal, cuts in tax credit, the consideration of a flat tax and, if I may say so, the third version this week of a third fiscal rule, would all put the stability of the economy at risk.

Gordon Brown: Productivity has risen every year under this Government. Manufacturing productivity continues to rise. Growth in the British economy is higher every year on average than it was in the Conservative years. The Conservatives are going to have to face up to that. Let us have a bit of consistency from the shadow Chancellor. He congratulated me on my success with macro-economic policy. He said that I had improved the macro-economic management of the UK economy. He said that there was public confidence in Labour's ability to manage the economy. He said that Labour had established economic credibility. He said that it was the Conservatives who had lost their reputation for economic competence and that it was the Conservatives short-term opportunism that was hampering long-term policy. If he agrees with that, it is his own party that he should be criticising, not me.

Gordon Brown: I visited Mozambique, and I think that the children in my hon. Friend's local schools should be congratulated on what they have done. Only 6,000 people in Mozambique are being helped with retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS, when 600,000 are suffering from the disease. Until we can provide more money, either through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria or through other measures, many people will not be able to obtain the treatment that they need.
	Debt relief does help, however. I believe that £6 billion of Mozambique's debt has been written off as a result of the decisions that we made last year. Mozambique is one of the biggest beneficiaries from the £170 billion of debt that is to be written off as a result of the cumulative effect of all the decisions—and so it should be, because it is an economy that is trying to grow. It is removing corruption, taking action to improve the functioning of its economic policy, and deliberately putting more money into education and health. When I am in Davos tomorrow, I will meet the President of Mozambique, and will be able to tell him that we shall do more in the next few years to support the global fund.

Des Browne: "Complacent" will be quite sufficient to support my disappointment. I took care to answer specifically the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked what factors are taken into account in assessing competitiveness and I answered the question. It did not seem to me that, in a factual question, there was room even for his extravagant expressions of regret.
	The hon. Gentleman has expressed judgment on whether the steps that the Government have taken were appropriate, and he will recollect that he was one of the most vociferous and consistent critics of the Government's decision in the early days to give the Bank of England independence. He may well, like most of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, have changed his view on that, and now has to accept the judgment made by the Government. He nods to indicate that he has.
	The hon. Gentleman will know, from his experience and knowledge of this area, that the most important thing in relation to competitiveness and productivity for the UK is macro-economic stability. Indeed, the shadow Chancellor effectively said that in the speech that he made on Monday, when he said that he would not sacrifice the stability that we in government have won for this country for any other purpose, even tax cuts. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are a significant number of factors. There may be views in relation to them, but stability is there.

Des Browne: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of what he describes as the individual successes. In fact, the success of the new deal is the aggregate of all those individual successes. In all our constituencies, including his I am sure, it has taken significant numbers of young people from having no future to having significant opportunity to move themselves up the labour market and to improve their conditions. The challenge that we face in relation to the people whom he describes is that they have not had an opportunity to work in the past, rather than that they are faced with the complexity of income tax forms. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has set out our plans for the coming years to deal with the challenges that those people face, and to move them nearer to and into the labour market. I was delighted that the Conservative Front Bench supported those plans.

Theresa May: Last week I asked the Leader of the House for an early statement on troop deployments in Afghanistan. That statement of course will be made today, and I should like to thank the Leader of the House for the alacrity with which he responded to my request. Dare I say it, this could be the start of a beautiful relationship—[Hon. Members: "Ooh."]—that is, of course, unless it is rudely interrupted by a Cabinet reshuffle.
	Talking of which, as we have Cabinet Office business in the House in a couple of weeks, will there be a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in post by then? If not, I have a suggestion for the Government. Perhaps the money saved could be used to pay the Minister for Women and Equality. After all, a pay gap for the Minister for Women and Equality of 49 per cent. is hardly a good example for others.
	May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the date of the Budget?
	Given the constitutional implications of the Government of Wales Bill and the fact that so far only a quarter of the Bill has been discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House, will the Government give consideration to a further day of Committee debate on the Bill?
	The Health Secretary's statement yesterday showed that Ministers have lost financial control in the NHS. Will she come to the House to make a statement on the financial position of the NHS? We heard only today of a hospital serving the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) which, as in the "Yes, Minister" sketch, seems to think that it is okay to pay staff to keep operating theatres open but then cancel operations and leave theatres lying empty. May we have a debate in Government time on health issues and their impact on patients?
	Last week there was an excellent debate on international development matters. Given the importance of the issues that the Department for International Development deals with, and the fact that its budget is now larger than that of the Foreign Office, will the Government consider giving more time to oral questions for DFID?
	Finally, we now know that the Government's scheme for bus passes is giving real problems to local authorities, that libraries are being closed across the country because of financial problems and that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has spent £168 million on consultants advising on knocking down 168,000 houses. A survey of experts involved in the Thames Gateway found that only 13 per cent. described the Deputy Prime Minister's leadership as "effective or broadly ok". Today, a Select Committee report accused the Department of double counting on efficiencies and reported that 10 per cent. of staff felt bullied in the last year, and an earlier MORI opinion poll of Government officials said that the ODPM was lacking leadership and comparable to a "pantomime horse". Given that under this Government council tax has risen by 76 per cent., may we urgently have a debate on the burdens placed by Government on local councils and the implications for council tax payers?

Geoff Hoon: Well, I will leave others to judge whether it is a lot shorter: it is at least shorter. I am delighted to have the opportunity again to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office for the excellent work that he is doing on behalf of the Cabinet Office and the excellent way that he comes to the House to answer questions. I am sure that he is earning every penny, as is every other Minister.
	The question of financial control in the NHS is of course routinely raised by Opposition Members and I understand why they have concerns about financial management in their local hospitals. Some three quarters of NHS bodies are in balance or in surplus and it is important to the Government that that should apply across the country. I am always slightly surprised when Opposition Members raise such issues, because if the Government were not tackling the question of the deficits in NHS bodies they would all rise in righteous indignation to complain about that. We are of course tackling the problem and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced measures to assist those organisations to achieve financial balance and surplus. That applies just as well in Tunbridge Wells, and I was able to listen this morning to the chief executive of the primary care trust giving an extremely satisfactory explanation of the position. I suspect that the right hon. Lady did not hear that, because if she had, she might not have raised the issue today.
	As for international development matters, it is important to devote the appropriate time to the very important work that the Department does on behalf of the United Kingdom, but if more time is made available for that, less time is available for other issues. That is the balance that must always be struck in the House.
	The right hon. Lady also mentioned housing. I cannot resist making the point that investment in housing has risen from some £1.65 billion in the last year of the Conservative Government to more than £5 billion now. That is an astonishing improvement. It means that housing has been improved across the country. It also means that some housing has been demolished, but that is because that housing is incapable of being improved. Where it is possible to improve housing, it is being improved, but where demolition is necessary, there are demolitions. The space can then be used for better housing for people in the areas affected. There will be an opportunity next week for all hon. Members to ask questions of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on Wednesday, and I am sure that there will shortly be an opportunity to deal with matters affecting the NHS.

John Spellar: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1479?
	[That this House recognises the pleasure given to early rising listeners to BBC Radio Four by the subtle and evocative medley of British folk tunes in Fritz Spiegl's UK Theme which starts daily broadcasting and has become embedded over the years in the affections of listeners; and urges the BBC to reconsider its decision to drop this popular medley and to continue to use the UK Theme in the proud place is has occupied with such success and charm for so many years.]
	The motion has received support across the House. Interestingly enough, it now has support from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). In the light of that, can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate so as to get some sense into the BBC management for restoring the UK theme to Radio 4?

Clive Betts: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the future of regional casinos? Before the election, the House concluded that there could be regeneration benefits from such casinos and that we should hold a pilot scheme, but, unfortunately, we agreed that that pilot should be simply one project. I am not sure that I could find one Member of the House who now thinks that one is the right number. What might work in an old industrial area such as the lower Don valley in my constituency will not necessarily work in seaside resorts or in London. Can we have a debate so that we can reach a sensible conclusion? Yes, we should have a pilot project, but the number involved should be eight, not one.

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the deployment of our armed forces to Afghanistan.
	Just over four years ago, on 11 September 2001, we were given a brutal lesson in the consequences of leaving Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban and the terrorists. Since then, we in this country have been at the forefront of the international effort, under the auspices of the United Nations, to defeat international terrorism, to free Afghanistan from the ruthless grip of the Taliban and to rid the country of the menace of the terrorists and the greed of the drug traffickers.
	That will not be achieved by military means alone. Therefore, although today's statement deals with the military elements of the deployment, the British Government have undertaken an unprecedented degree of cross-governmental co-ordination to ensure that this is a fully integrated package addressing governance, security and political and social change. I am grateful for the involvement of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for International Development.
	Last September, I visited Afghanistan. I saw for myself the real hope that the international community has brought to a new generation of Afghans: the hope that at last the Afghan people can rebuild their country, the hope that Afghanistan can take its rightful place as a country where men and women alike can live in peace and freedom, the hope for a better future.
	We cannot risk losing those achievements. We cannot risk Afghanistan again becoming a sanctuary for terrorists. We have seen where that leads, be it in New York or in London. We cannot ignore the opportunity to bring security to a fragile but vital part of the world, and we cannot go on accepting Afghan opium being the source of 90 per cent. of the heroin that is applied to the veins of the young people of this country. For all those reasons, it is in our interests, as the United Kingdom and as a responsible member of the international community, to act.
	In helping Afghanistan, we cannot look to resolve just one of those issues. Everything connects. Stability depends on a viable, legitimate economy. That depends on rooting out corruption and finding real alternatives to the harvesting of opium. That means helping Afghanistan to develop judicial systems, her infrastructure and the capability to govern herself effectively, which in turn brings stability and security.
	That is where there is a clear role for the military: helping to create and to maintain a framework of security on which legitimate Afghan institutions can grow and thrive. NATO, through its leadership of the international security assistance force, itself under the auspices of the UN, has a major role to play in making that happen.
	Thanks to NATO's leadership, ISAF has already expanded its activities to cover the north and west of Afghanistan, at the request of the democratically elected Afghan Government and with the authorization of the United Nations. It now stands on the brink of expanding its operations into southern Afghanistan as part of a planned, pre-envisaged and phased expansion—stage 3. I believe NATO is now in a position to take those plans forward.
	Our allies are playing their part in ISAF. In the north we shall hand over responsibilities to Germany, Finland, Sweden and Norway; in the west Italy and Spain lead ISAF, and Lithuania and the US also provide forces; and in the south the US, Canada and Romania already have troops stationed, Estonia has pledged forces, the Danish Parliament is examining a proposal to send forces—I spoke to its Minister this morning—and we are optimistic that the Dutch, whose Minister I also spoke to this morning, will also deploy forces. In addition, Australia and New Zealand may provide forces. This truly is and will be an international, multinational effort. On the ground and in the air, this is a truly multidimensional, international force. The US, for example, has offered to provide attack helicopters and support helicopters, and we know other countries are considering providing fast jets and transport aircraft.
	We need that broad level of international support as the context in which to commit our British troops. We need the capabilities and the forces because ISAF expansion is no easy or small task in stage 3. Southern Afghanistan is undeniably a more demanding area in which to operate than either the north or the west. The Taliban remains active. The authority of the Afghan Government—and the reach of their security forces—is still weak. The influence of the drugs traffickers, by contrast, is strong.
	ISAF must be prepared to meet these challenges. It means different forces and it may mean different tactics—not because we want to wage war: that is not our aim. Provincial reconstruction teams, building up Afghanistan's capacity, will remain at the core of ISAF's expansion into the south, just as it was in the north and west. But just as the threat is greater, so must be our ability and willingness to deter and defend ourselves against attack. The capabilities and experience of our armed services, to whom I again today pay tribute, make us well placed to help ISAF do both.
	We have previously announced our decision to deploy the headquarters group of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to lead ISAF from May 2006 to February 2007. ISAF, via NATO, will be under a British commander, General Richards. It will be supported by elements of 1 Signal Brigade, including troops from 7 and 16 Signal Regiments and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps Support Battalion. This alone means a commitment of over 1,000 troops towards the headquarters based in and around Kabul.
	We are also preparing for a deployment to southern Afghanistan. Next month 39 Regiment, Royal Engineers will deploy to Helmand province to build an encampment for our main deployment. A company from 42 Commando Royal Marines will provide protection and three CH-47 Chinook support helicopters from 18(B) Squadron, Royal Air Force, will offer essential lift and mobility in Afghanistan terrain largely without roads. All told, between now and July we shall send some 850 additional personnel to help prepare for our main deployment. That main deployment will have at its heart a new British-led PRT at Lashkar Gar, the capital of Helmand province. As in the north, the PRT will be based on a triumvirate of the British military commander, and officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from the Department for International Development respectively. So we are working to ensure that we provide Afghanistan with a seamless package of democratic, political, developmental and military assistance in Helmand. All of that is necessary to ensure that international terrorism never again has a base in Afghanistan.
	We are also working to make sure that our goals are Afghan goals, too. Assisting Afghan counter-narcotics initiatives is an obvious example. If we help them, we help ourselves at the same time. As I mentioned earlier, 90 per cent. of the heroin injected into the veins of young people in this country originates in Afghanistan. Helmand province is the largest single source of opium in Afghanistan. We can help to train Afghan counter-narcotics forces and support their operations, and we can provide intelligence. We can assist the Afghan Government in explaining their policies to the people. Above all, we can, along with the support of the Afghans, create the environment in which economic development and institutional reform—I again emphasise that both are essential to the elimination of the opium industry—can take place.
	So the range of tasks for the provincial reconstruction team is large. It will form part of a larger, more than 3,300-strong British force providing the security framework. That force will itself come under a new Multinational Brigade (South), which will initially be under Canadian, alternating with British, command. Our contribution, the Helmand taskforce, will include elements of the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade, and an airborne infantry battlegroup. Based initially around the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, it will incorporate a force consisting of eight Apache attack helicopters, provided by the 9th Regiment Army Air Corps. That will be the first time that we have deployed this impressive new capability on an operation. The 9th Regiment will also supply four Lynx light utility helicopters, while 27 Squadron Royal Air Force will provide a detachment of six Chinook support helicopters.
	Other major units and capabilities include Scimitar and Spartan armoured vehicles from the Household Cavalry Regiment; a battery of 105 mm light guns from 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery; a battery of Desert Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles from 32 Regiment Royal Artillery; 13 Air Assault Regiment and 29 Regiment Royal Logistics Corps; 7 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers; and 16 Close Support Medical Regiment. We shall also deploy four additional RAF C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. It is a substantial package—one that the chiefs of staff have agreed is necessary in order to maximise our chances and minimise our danger.
	We aim for these deployments to be fully operational by July this year. The total number of our troops in Afghanistan—those already there, those at the new ISAF headquarters, the Helmand taskforce and the temporary surge engineering capability—will fluctuate over the next few months. It will peak, briefly, at some 5,700, before reducing to fewer than 4,700 as— according to current plans—the engineers building the encampments return home from Helmand in July, and our Harrier GR7 detachment withdraws in June. Our forces will then comprise those needed to command ISAF, some 300 troops engaged in support and training tasks in Kabul, and the Helmand taskforce. Predominantly, they will consist of regular troops. There will, however, be a small number of reservists, most of whom will be drawn from the Royal Rifle Volunteers or from the 4th Battalion Parachute Regiment.
	I want to make a few things clear. The size and structure of the task force has been guided by a careful assessment of the likely tasks and threats that it will face. What matters is that we put the right forces in to do the job and to do it safely and well, and I make no apology if that requires more soldiers than some people initially envisaged.
	Attack helicopters are certainly formidable, but they are also necessary. The roads in Helmand are very poor, and that means that support helicopters are essential. They in turn need attack helicopters to protect them and the forces that they deploy. Let me stress once more: we are deploying this potent force to protect and deter. The ISAF mission is unchanged. It is focused on reconstruction.
	The resources for this deployment will be made available. This will be a three- year deployment, and it will cost around £1 billion over a five-year period. The resources will be made available, commencing in this financial year.
	As I said earlier, we have a clear strategic interest in the renewal of Afghanistan. Obviously, that informed our decision. Equally, we have similar interests elsewhere, and an interest in maintaining effective and capable armed forces. We took careful account of those factors as well, including our other commitments. This deployment is manageable alongside those other, wider commitments, including Iraq. It does not require drawdown in Iraq. As we have said continually, that will be based on conditions in Iraq itself.
	The House will be interested to hear about the command and control arrangements. To begin with, the multinational brigade as it arrives in Afghanistan in transitional format will come under the coalition. That is a necessary transitional measure, and is what happened when we established our first PRT in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif in 2003. Of course, Canadian, Romanian and US forces are already serving in the south of the country. However, other allies, such as Denmark, Estonia and, I hope, the Netherlands need time to build up sufficient forces in southern Afghanistan to implement ISAF's expansion into the region, just as we do. I therefore anticipate that later this year, at the earliest opportunity after the transitional period, ISAF will take control of the forces in the south from the coalition. That will happen during our command of ISAF. The Kandahar headquarters of the Helmand taskforce will alternate between Canadian and British command, but will ultimately come under the command of the ISAF headquarters. In turn, the ISAF headquarters will be commanded by the British general in command of the allied rapid reaction force headquarters that is moving there.
	All of this has but one aim—a secure, stable, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan, free from terrorism and terrorist domination. The House will be concerned about the risks and dangers of the deployment. Whatever the difficulties and dangers— and I do not hide them from the House or the country—those risks are nothing compared to the dangers to our country and our people of allowing Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of the Taliban and international terrorism.
	We will not allow that, and the Afghan people will not allow that. They have already made great strides towards achieving a new future. They have a democratically elected President and Parliament, and democratically elected assemblies. Their legitimate economy is growing. Children—both boys and girls—are back at school, and refugees are returning home.
	I am the first to accept that there is a long, long way to go. Extending ISAF into stage 3 in the south is a small but hugely significant step on the journey. This country has pledged to help the Afghan people as they continue on that journey. I am convinced that that is something that we should do to help, and that it is something that we will do.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his necessarily long and detailed statement, and for making a copy available to the Opposition in advance. He was right at the outset to remind the House why we are in Afghanistan. We are there as part of the NATO response to the 9/11 attacks on the United States and as part of a wider coalition seeking to prevent Afghanistan collapsing into a security vacuum that could so easily be filled by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It is right to state in the House that we have a duty to stand with our allies—nations large and small that have joined the war on terror.
	There are two unacceptable outcomes in Afghanistan—to fail to act or to act and fail. The slaughter in New York and London reminds us that our national security is best served by denying a breeding ground to those who are opposed to our way of life. So failure to act is not an option, but if we must act decisively, we must act effectively, since strategic failure would be a disaster. We need to know exactly what the mission is, what its objectives are and how success will be measured. Especially after Iraq, it is essential that the House asks detailed questions of the Government about the proposed deployment, and that the Government respond with clarity.
	Let me begin with risk assessment. Our troops will be deployed to Helmand province, focusing on anti-narcotic and reconstruction activities. The Government have already described the situation as less benign than the norm, and the situation can worsen rapidly. Insurgents are mobile and may move to where ISAF troops are located. What assessment have the Government made of the current security status in the south of Afghanistan and in Helmand province specifically? How do the Government believe that the threat to our troops would change in the event of the appearance of either new insurgents or insurgents displaced from Iraq or other areas? Do the Government have any evidence that al-Qaeda is transferring operatives from other areas, notably Iraq, to Afghanistan, and what assessment have the Government made of the degree of interaction between insurgents and Iran, given that the Iranian border is only 150 miles away from Lashkar Gar, where the British troops will be stationed?
	Let me ask about reconstruction. It would be wrong for the House to regard the reconstruction element as the easy road. Reconstruction will be a difficult task, as the tribal areas and the Afghan warlords do not share our view of how society should be constructed. Traditionally, successful Afghan Governments have been those with a light touch. What risk is there of our trying to apply a model of government suited to Kabul but unsuited to the southern provinces, and so creating resentment and hostility?
	Let me ask a number of questions about the deployment. There is widespread support in the House for the strategic objectives—anti-narcotic, anti-insurgency and anti-terrorist—set out by the Government, but the Secretary of State will be well aware of widespread anxieties that the level of resources committed by ISAF may not be sufficient to achieve the stated objectives, and that we may consequently be drawn into an escalated conflict. How confident is the Secretary of State that the total complement of ISAF troops in Afghanistan is or will be sufficient to achieve the Government's objectives? How sure is he that all the necessary equipment will be available? Both the National Audit Office and the Defence Committee have identified a shortage of helicopter lift capacity. Has that been addressed? If so, how, and with what effect on other operations?
	Then we come to the issues of command and control dealt with by the Secretary of State later in his statement. ISAF is a stabilisation force and as such is not geared for combat operations. Operation Enduring Freedom, however, is a counter-terrorism combat operation, and British troops will serve under both commands in Afghanistan and therefore operate under different rules of engagement. For example, under OEF, attacking insurgents can be shot at and pursued, but under ISAF rules of engagement, insurgents will not be pursued because that constitutes counter-terrorist activity. Even within ISAF, individual national contingents may operate their own specific rules of engagement different from ISAF's.
	The Secretary of State said that we are deploying this potent force to protect and deter, but can he confirm that that does not include a counter-terrorism role? Does not that send dangerously mixed signals? Can he tell us what arrangements have been made for increased NATO-ISAF command integration with the US-led OEF? Is he satisfied with the clarity of the chain of command under which British troops will operate?
	I said yesterday that we would want to know about the issue of prisoners. Can the Secretary of State tell us what powers of arrest and detention are available to British troops engaged in peacekeeping in Afghanistan, and how do they differ from those available to those acting under OEF command and those operating under ISAF command? What is the policy of NATO on the rendition of terror suspects detained by ISAF? What agreement, if any, has been reached between NATO and the Afghan Government relating to arrest and detention of suspects in Afghanistan? What assessment has he made of the effects of ISAF being integrated more closely in the longer term with OEF?
	There are many other questions for the Government to answer on the tension between the anti-narcotic and anti-terrorist objectives, or training, or the overstretch effects on the British armed forces generally. For clarification, can the Secretary of State tell us if the £1 billion cost that he mentions will be met from reserves? Can he tell us how much money will be specifically earmarked to compensate the farmers he mentioned for decreased poppy production?
	If the Secretary of State is unable to answer specific questions today, the House will expect clear answers before any deployment takes place. Every precaution must be taken to minimise the risk to our forces, whose courage and professionalism we salute today. The defence of our national security and the construction of a free and democratic Afghanistan are noble ideals. We cannot fail to act, but we cannot act and fail. It is in that respect that we will hold the Government to account, as is our duty.

John Reid: I would make three points to my hon. Friend. He is quite right to point to the historical precedents, but as I said on Monday, there are two big differences between the Russian and previous British interventions, as well as those of other nations. First, we have been invited in by the Afghans themselves, including the country's democratically-elected President and Government, which makes a big difference. Secondly, we are not there for imperialist reasons, unlike the situation during the several previous interventions, which the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) continually and correctly brings to our attention.
	We are addressing not only one area because there is an incremental approach. Stage 1 was in the north and stage 2 is in the west. Stage 3 means that three quarters of Afghanistan will be covered. I fully accept that not every metre of it will be covered, but the more we go round the clock on the stages, the smaller the chances that we will end up just squeezing a balloon so that the air—the corruption and narcotics in this case—goes to another area.
	I do not envisage that building a modern Afghanistan—which lacks a central corporate governance, in tradition and structure, unlike Iraq; which lacks a developed middle class, unlike Iraq; and which lacks the mineral resources of, say, Iraq—will be an easy or a short process. It will not be done during the three years in which we are there because there will be a continuing process for the Afghans themselves over many decades. I hope that we will be their friends and that we will support them over that period. I have no doubt that there will be other occasions when they will ask us for military assistance. We can make a significant difference in the south over three years by extending the writ of central Government, starting the development of alternative livelihoods and, at the end, having a force of the Afghan army and police in the order of 2,500 to 3,000 trained people, which would be similar to our numbers in Helmand. I think that my hon. Friend was asking whether there is an exit strategy for the deployment. Yes there is, and that is it.

John Reid: I am sure that it is by the United States. It is always a dreadfully difficult task to balance the fight against a dreadful enemy who is unconstrained by any morality, any conventional norms of international standards and any Geneva convention. They will demean people, degrade them and show them publicly, and they are increasingly behaving in that manner. At the same time, we are fighting to a set of standards under scrutiny by the media, under international legalities, under human rights and other standards. It is always difficult to get the balance right. I would merely say that ourselves and our allies, the United States and others, try to get the balance right continuously. I know that it is always on our mind, but we try to ensure that it does not unduly constrain our troops. In the long run, the maintenance of such standards strategically is a source of legitimacy and strength to us, and that is why we take such care.

Bob Russell: As the Secretary of State knows, 3,000 troops from 16th Air Assault Brigade are taking part in Exercise Herrick Eagle, although less than two weeks ago the Minister of State for the armed forces stated that
	"it does not mean that these units . . . will be committed to Southern Afghanistan in 2006."
	The announcement from the Secretary of State today confirms that that will happen. When will the deployment commence, how long will the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment and elements of the headquarters of 16th Air Assault Brigade be based in Afghanistan? Does that not yet again illustrate the overstretch? When will the right hon. Gentleman address that principal problem?

Keith Vaz: I wish to speak only briefly on the new clause. It is sad that we have lost the eloquent skills of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who argued so strongly earlier for more time to scrutinise the legislation. As soon as the motion was passed, he disappeared from the Chamber.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) for the way in which he moved the new clause. I have sympathy with it, but cannot support it because it does not deal with the fundamental problem of transferring the granting of legal aid from the courts to the Legal Services Commission.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) is doing a splendid job at the Department. I have no problems with her being able to deal with, supervise and monitor the work of the Legal Services Commission, but she is creating a framework which will make it difficult in future for people to challenge decisions made by that commission.
	I was pleased when an amendment was passed in the other place to allow for the right of appeal on such cases. It gives people who apply for legal aid the opportunity to have that decision scrutinised by a body other than the Legal Services Commission. The most worrying aspect of some steps that the Government have taken on legal services and the court system, is their wish to abolish rights of appeal and place decisions with the very organisations or individuals who are commissioned to make the original decisions. That is wrong.
	I thought that the new clause would give us the opportunity to restore that right of appeal, but it deals with applications in the first instance. It deals with those circumstances where for some reason an application cannot be referred to the Legal Services Commission. Therefore, it concedes the point that the first decision should be made by the Legal Services Commission. That worries me because there should be scrutiny and an opportunity for individuals to have their cases assessed by those other than the decision makers. In addition, it puts a great deal of trust and faith in the operation of the Legal Services Commission.
	It is clear from all the information that I have from individuals and practitioners who have had to deal with the Legal Services Commission that they are dealing with a highly bureaucratic organisation which seems to compound the delays that already exist in our legal system. Of course in reply the Minister could announce some radical shake-up of the way in which the commission operates to satisfy me and others that her faith in the organisation is justified, but neither that nor the new clause deals with the fundamental principle that others should review the decision.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made an important point. We need to know before the passage of the Bill the circumstances in which the new clause will operate. Where are those exceptions which would take us out of the procedures set down by the Government in the proposed statute and allow an oral application? The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps they could be included in draft regulations or by some other method by which Ministers can supplement legislation. That is a real problem. We need to know that information. Otherwise, people will have a choice and, given the choice, most would choose to make their application to the courts rather than to the Legal Services Commission.
	The purpose of the Bill is not just to make the system more efficient, which hopefully it will; it is to save money because of the large increase in the legal aid budget over the last 20 years. I think that it now stands at £1.1 billion. The Bill seeks to save about £35 million. It would not be difficult to devise a scheme—we cannot do so now that we have reached Report stage—that will enable people who feel that they have not been treated fairly and have additional information to put before the bodies to go to another body to put their views forward. The new clause would not allow us to do that. It moves us in the right direction, but it is not quite the strengthening amendment that I wanted to see.

Jonathan Djanogly: It is at this stage that we see the real implications of the programme motion. I want the Minister to have time to reply, so I shall be brief.
	As for the amendment, I have a certain feeling of déjà vu. It has been the determination of the Government to eliminate the appeal process, which was astutely introduced by my noble friends and Liberal peers in the other place. Once again, I feel obliged, as was the case with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), to reiterate our belief in the importance of an appeal process forming part of the Bill, and in turn upholding the principle of access to justice. However, in the light of the amendment, it seems that we have a compromise. I welcome that to the extent that a right of appeal is not completely removed from the Bill, as would have been the case otherwise. For that, I am grateful.
	I must reiterate the importance of an appeal process rather than simply having a judicial review process that the Government seemed to want to stick by. Our noble friends and Opposition peers in the other place felt it appropriate to allow for an appeal process in relation to the eligibility test reintroduced by the Government. We welcomed that because we believed that it was important that the courts should be able to hear appeals on the interest of justice test as well as on the eligibility test, and that the courts should be able to consider these matters afresh.
	We therefore found the Government's decision to overturn the amendment moved in the other place to be irrational and potentially damaging to the Bill, but in essence we give our support. I note that Members from all parties, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), have come to roughly the same position.
	Their noble Lords ultimately understood the complicated nature of an eligibility test that cannot be accurate on every occasion. The Government stated in their supplement to the framework document that there will be regulations for the consideration of cases in which exceptional circumstances require funding for those who do not meet the eligibility criteria, but not by appeal.Page 12 of the supplement states that the test is whether the cases require a fine judgment that warrants the intervention of the courts. Surely exceptional cases meet that test.
	The Government seem to resist the Lords contribution on the foundation that it is a waste of court time to have to deal with administrative matters. That they are administrative is quite clear. However, the Government should consider the circumstances recognised by their Lordships in the other place whereby a defendant's financial, legal and social means fall not within the realms of administration but within the remit of the administration of justice.
	The Government have conceded that there are exceptional circumstances where the eligibility test does not simply apply to factual issues, but say that these can be dealt with simply by judicial review. To our mind, that is misguided. The process of judicial review is too cumbersome suitably to address the rights of those whose plight has been worsened by non-financial issues under the merits test. Judicial review demands a new and separate process that can only prove more costly than referring back to a judge or court that has already dealt with the matter.
	Hon. Members may now appreciate that the potential compromise that the amendment presents is not one that we would see as the perfect answer to an issue on which we have argued strongly throughout the passage of the Bill. At the same time, we can accept an amendment that provides a platform for referring the question to a court. With the amendment, we accept that nothing will be lost by the defendant and that in the correct circumstances the correct decision will be reached.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill marks a significant stride forward in ensuring that the criminal legal aid system becomes fairer and more effective. It will achieve this by re-introducing an updated and revised means test, as well as transferring responsibility for the grant of criminal legal aid representation from the courts to the Legal Services Commission. The Bill reflects our firm view that those who can afford to pay for their criminal defence costs, not least wealthy Premiership footballers or lottery winners, should be asked to do so.
	By targeting resources on those who most need them, we will be able to deliver a sustainable legal aid system that continues to serve the needs of this and future generations. In short, the Bill will help provide for a criminal legal aid scheme that ensures access to justice for all, while giving better value for money to the taxpayer. I am sure all hon. Members will be pleased that their constituents can welcome the Bill knowing that those who earn vast sums of money or gain vast sums by other means will no longer be eligible for legal aid.
	I have been encouraged that the key principles that underpin the Bill have broadly met with unanimity from both Houses. I am delighted that on the one issue where debate has been most intense—the policy on reviews in respect of the new means test—we have been able to reach a consensus and a practical solution. I hope that the House of Lords will take the same view. The fact that we have been able to work closely with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) demonstrates the constructive spirit in which the House has debated the important issues raised by the Bill. I pay tribute to him and others, including the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), for their contributions today, in Committee and on Second Reading, which have got the Bill to this stage.
	I also take the opportunity to thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee and my hon. Friends in the Whips Office, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), for ensuring that we have had an informative, albeit concise, debate.
	May I express through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), who was one of the Chairmen of the Committee, but who, unfortunately, owing to the precise and concise way in which we dealt with matters, was unable to chair part of our proceedings. I thank, too, everyone on both sides of the House who have participated today and throughout our proceedings for ensuring that we pass a Bill that will stand us in good stead for the future.
	Finally, I thank the officials in my Department for the excellent work that they have done, not just on my behalf but on behalf of everyone in the House in ensuring that we have a Criminal Defence Service Bill which will last long into the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Keith Vaz: In response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in the last debate, the Minister referred to a coincidence of desire. Until the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) got to the last part of his speech, I felt like a gooseberry watching not consideration in Committee being reported back to the House, but a love-in, so generous was the praise between those on the Front Benches and so amicable the discussions and various deliberations in Committee and in the House since consideration of the Bill began.
	I pay tribute to the Minister and her colleagues at the Department for Constitutional Affairs on the modernising agenda that they have adopted since my noble Friend Lord Falconer became Lord Chancellor. There must be something of a whirlwind in the Department. I remember my time there as a Minister six years ago, when it was not so much sleepy, but at least not as dynamic as it is now. Legislation rushes out the door at breakneck speed and Ministers appear before the House practically every week to tell us about new legislation that is to be passed.
	The Bill is important, primarily because we want to save money on the very large legal aid budget. The hon. Member for Huntingdon will not remember the debates held in the House when I was first elected, when the legal aid budget was, even under the last Conservative Government, spiralling out of control. The current legal aid budget is £1.1 billion, which makes the DCA one of the biggest-spending Departments.
	The savings that the Bill envisages are quite small—only £35 million out of £1.1 billion—but £35 million is a lot of money. It is better than a poke in the eye, and any legislation that saves money for the taxpayer so that it can be spent wisely is to be welcomed. Therefore, I welcome the Government's approach of targeting legal aid so that it is spent on those who need it. The Minister gave the examples of the lottery winner and the football player, but there are a lot of people in between them and the very poor who must not be left out.
	My main concern, in accepting what the Government have done and supporting the Minister in the good work that she does at the Department, is that too much trust and faith are being put in the Legal Services Commission. Once the decision-making process is taken away from the judges and the courts, removing that degree of independence and putting it in the hands of bureaucrats, some of whom are ex-civil servants—not that we have anything against them; I shall use the term "officials", if I may call them that—our ability as Parliament and that of people who apply for legal aid to feel that they have had their case justly treated are also removed.
	The Minister accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and I welcome the spirit in which she did that, but I ask her to spend her time and efforts in supervising and monitoring what the Legal Services Commission does. It is dispensing a huge amount of public money, so both ministerial eyes need to be firmly on those who govern the commission. The Minister should be willing to respond to the concerns of Members of the House, the public and the professions when they point out that things are going wrong.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who unfortunately has had to leave the House, has raised with the Minister, as I am doing again today, her concern and mine about the proposals to stop the specialist support services in England and Wales, which are to be provided by the Legal Services Commission. My hon. Friend tells me that they will be stopped in July. I see that the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and other members of the Committee are here today. We discussed this very matter yesterday.
	The concern held by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and by me is that these services are being stopped when the Government should be ensuring that we target our money so that services that work—providing assistance and advice to voluntary organisations on issues such as debt, housing and welfare benefits—should continue. I ask the Minister to look into that point at the same time as she is asking us to put our faith in her judgment and that of the Lord Chancellor in transferring yet again so many powers to the Legal Services Commission.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon is right; in a sense, the Government are the victims of their own success. Having taken power in 1997 and having told the public that they would catch criminals faster, that is what they have been doing. But that puts pressure on the court system, which goes back to an earlier point concerning the relationship between the DCA and the Home Office. The DCA is an equal partner with the Home Office. The Home Office is not in charge and the Home Secretary does not tell the Lord Chancellor what to do; I am quite sure that the Lord Chancellor is robust in his dealings with the Home Office. But our great success in catching criminals and reducing the number of crimes committed has resulted in an increase in the legal aid budget.
	I see my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) looking at me. Clearly he will soon be gesticulating to tell me to bring my speech to a close and, as I am quite afraid of him, I will do so. I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has done good work on immigration appeals. I ask her to listen to the professions and not to fight with them.
	I have read the Law Society brief on this and it has no problems with what the Government are doing, apart from the effect on the right of appeal. I ask my hon. Friend to work with the professions and with those who help those going through the legal system. I am sure that the good will generated for most of this afternoon will be generated again by similar legislation that I am sure my hon. Friend will propose in the years to come.

Richard Bacon: We find ourselves spending more later on in spades, and wastefully. In the recent exercise with St. Mary's, Paddington, the bidding round failed, cost £50 million and produced nothing of worth. They are having to go back and do it all again. We recently heard about the problems with Bart's, with potentially £100 million of fees lost.
	The hon. Lady anticipates a point that I intended to make later by drawing an analogy with the way in which defence procurement works. As we have said in some of our reports, the assessment phase should receive a greater proportion of the resource that goes into the project. Designers are having to respond to pressures from the leaders of consortiums, who are usually a combination of the building contractors and the banks, to build to the lowest cost or to facilitate the easiest building method. That may be sensible or it may be in the best interests not of the client but of the consortium that has to deliver it. The client is interested in the best possible hospital within the available budget for patients.
	The problems are so widespread that the Treasury cannot say that it is not a problem and neither can anyone else. It is a significant problem. The question is what do we do about it? RIBA, along with others, has evolved what it thinks may be part of the answer. It has called it smart procurement, which leads directly to the point that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was making. In smart acquisition, part of the emphasis is on spending more of the resource earlier.
	In our third report of the 2005–06 Session, HC410, we said in terms:
	"The amount of work undertaken in the assessment phase is still not sufficient to enable sensible investment decisions to be taken . The Department's own Smart Acquisition guideline suggests that up to 15 per cent. of the cost of a project should be spent in the assessment phase."
	That is for defence procurement. I do not want to promulgate a particular percentage, but it is clear that the point is analogous to what is going on in PFI hospitals.
	Essentially, it is about getting the design team much nearer to the client. I have talked to the institute and it does not appear to be a case of architects or other professionals talking up their own book, which might be expected from any professional body. That is not what the institute means. It means getting civil engineers, quantity surveyors and others to work closely with the relevant hospital trust at a much earlier stage to eliminate problems by having a much closer understanding much earlier of what is required. That effectively allows the client to drive the process more strongly, with greater information and control, and power over the outcome.
	In that context, it is interesting to consider the situation in Northern Ireland. As the Chairman said earlier, we have had many reasons to look at Northern Ireland, including the Navan centre, the sheep annual premium scheme and the recent job skills project. Many of the projects we have looked at have been a disgrace, but the Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, especially the Health Estates Agency under the management of John Cole, is blazing a trail. Because of the slightly different context in Northern Ireland, it has gone further down the path and I urge the Financial Secretary and other Ministers to examine what has been done there and whether the rest of the UK could learn some lessons about how PFI can be conducted.
	The issue is not only about designers: it is about the whole built environment sector coming together to produce better outcomes for taxpayers. The initiative that the institute has evolved is now at an advanced stage and preliminary discussions have already taken place with the Treasury. The institute has talked to public sector clients, building contractors, civil engineers, quantity surveyors, building surveyors, facilities managers, insurers and banks, and is looking to produce a final cross-industry position paper. My plea to the Financial Secretary is that the Treasury should engage with the process seriously. These are welcome moves by the industry to produce a better, more mature and more efficient PFI market. I urge the Financial Secretary to meet the main players who, in my view, are seeking genuinely to eliminate problems and produce better results to turn PFI into something that delivers even more value for taxpayers who are, after all, paying for it.

Greg Clark: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to have caught your eye. Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), I am thrilled to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. It is the best possible training to see not only how parliamentary Committees work, but how Whitehall works, and I am grateful to have that opportunity.
	Like previous speakers, I pay tribute to the work of the Committee secretariat, to the National Audit Office and to the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, I found that attending my first Sitting of the PAC rather took my breath away, with the ferocity of the questioning, but we have got into our stride and started to give as good as we get.
	It is important that we question witnesses robustly. One of the things that I have noticed during the hearings that we have had so far is that increasingly, there are organisations that are neither directly accountable to the electorate nor subject to the rigours of the marketplace, so it falls to us as the Public Accounts Committee to be almost the only possible scrutineers of their performance. That is not a happy situation. A class of organisations is developing that are neither part of the accountable public sector, nor subject to market disciplines. They are part of a kind of para-state that it is particularly difficult to interrogate. I refer to three examples.
	The first example causes me frustration because it was the subject of one of our hearings and has been covered in the reports before us: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. In a hearing on the complexity of benefits and tax credits, we considered a recent change in policy—the increase in the earnings disregard for tax credits from £2,500 to £25,000. Clearly, such a step change has a cost attached to it, and it strikes me that part of our core remit in assessing the value for money of Government policy is to find out what those costs are.
	The transcript of the evidence reads like an episode of "Yes, Minister". It took about 19 questions to solicit from the officials responsible whether any estimate had been made of the cost of the change. It turned out that there was an estimate. Of course there was; any increase in a disregard from £2,500 to £25,000 is clearly a major policy decision and Revenue and Customs had assessed it. An undertaking was given that not necessarily a robust estimate but the one that was made in assessing the policy would be disclosed to the Committee. I waited for that disclosure to be made, and I waited and I waited, and I continue to wait.
	I tried the route of parliamentary questions. I tabled a question before Christmas for answer on 20 December, but no answer came from the Treasury. There was neither a Christmas card nor any form of greeting from the Chancellor. I asked for the estimate that had been made when the policy was being assessed, but the answer that was finally given on 10 January was entirely unsatisfactory and diversionary:
	"Precise estimates of the change in entitlement resulting from the higher disregard . . . will not be known until 2006–07 awards have been finalised in early 2008."—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 556W.]
	The PAC gives us our one and only opportunity to ask questions of officials who are not directly accountable in any other forum, so it is particularly important. It is therefore disappointing that such an important Committee does not have quite the set of teeth that we need. Parliament's role of scrutinising the Government is very important and should be treated with respect. To exclude from scrutiny by the Committee and therefore the House such a major area of Government spending is not in accordance with the principles on which the PAC was established all those years ago.
	The second area is the national health service. In this arena of para-state organisations, where accountability is difficult to exercise, we have different parts of the NHS going by different names. We have primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and trusts, but they are all part of the NHS. We should have one NHS and that should be accountable. Indeed, it is important to getting value for money that it is accountable. By way of illustration, in my constituency operations and out-patient appointments are no longer being allocated or offered to those who need them, but the identity of who can be held responsible for that is obscure.

Theresa Villiers: I am delighted that my first speech at the Dispatch Box concerns the hugely valuable work of the Public Accounts Committee. For well over 100 years it has been keeping a watchful eye on the activities of the Government and the way in which they spend the money of British citizens.
	In the period of the Committee's work that we are considering today, it has continued its long tradition of producing hard-hitting reports, which I believe have had a significant impact on the work of the Government and the way in which they carry forward their policies. There can be few more important tasks for a parliamentarian than to scrutinise the spending of taxpayers' money. I pay tribute to all the members of the Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for carrying out their watchdog role in such an effective and dedicated manner. I should also like to join others in paying tribute to the staff of the Committee and to Sir John Bourn and his staff at the National Audit Office for their detailed, dispassionate and tireless work in this area.
	My hon. Friend made, as one would expect, a wide-ranging speech on the work of the Committee over the past 18 months, the themes of which I will return to in my speech. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) talked in depth about population growth issues in his constituency and statistical analysis of demography, and its impact on social cohesion and infrastructure provision in his area. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) chose three themes: mismanagement, referring to IT disasters, which cropped up several times during the debate, misguided application of policy, in particular the Qinetiq project, and fraud and the crisis in the tax credit system. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) spoke of improving the methods of the PAC and expressed concerns about some of the IT programmes that the Committee had looked at, describing them with accuracy as often a triumph of hope over experience. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) gave us an in depth account of what can go wrong with private finance initiatives and hospital provision. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) informed us that applying accountancy skills and effective project management could have a tremendous benefit if applied more widely in public procurement matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) emphasised the importance of robust bodies not accountable to the public or the marketplace, and spoke in rather frightening terms of a para-state which is difficult to interrogate properly. The hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) referred to smart procurement and made generous tributes to her colleagues on the Committee. I agree with her that in many ways the PAC is the voice of the people in keeping track of their money. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) spoke with great insight into and information about child care problems and the PAC report on early years.
	Given the Committee's vast output and the late hour I cannot hope to cover all the reports. Instead I shall focus on a few of the more striking conclusions. Also I shall look to the lessons for the future. I should like to take this opportunity to point out how it would be useful to those embarking on preparations for the London Olympics to read some of the reports that we are discussing. That would help them avoid many of the mistakes that have characterised Olympic projects in the past. My constituents in Chipping Barnet are among the council tax payers expected to pick up the bill for the 2012 games. It is my fervent hope that the Government and the various organisations preparing for the Olympics follow the wise advice of the PAC in effective planning and project management. Let us hope that in a few years' time we are not standing here discussing a coruscating PAC critique of overspend on the 2012 games.
	As we have heard this afternoon, much of the work of the PAC focuses on achieving value for money in the public services. As the Chairman pointed out, there can be few issues more central to modern political discourse than this one. The sums at stake are huge. The Comptroller and Auditor General has calculated that a mere 1 per cent. efficiency improvement in the spending allocated to Departments over three years could release £14.5 billion to redeploy on front-line services. I find it difficult to believe that the Government's Gershon review or the Opposition's James report would have been initiated without the trailblazing work of the PAC; nor might we have seen the creation of the Government's departmental capability reviews without the PAC's bringing pressure to bear on achieving value for money for the taxpayer.
	Although some of the issues addressed by the PAC are complex in the extreme, much of its advice is a matter of simple good housekeeping and sensible project management. Time and again, it has emphasised the importance of carrying out an effective and thorough planning process—a theme mentioned already today—including an in-depth assessment of potential risks and problems; of ensuring that all timetables are realistic; of breaking down complex projects into smaller, more manageable components; of putting in place reliable back-up plans to maintain services in the event of problems; of retaining a strong management grip on all projects at all times; and above all, of acting commercially when procuring services from the private sector, and applying hard-headed commercial common sense to contract negotiations. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will regretfully agree that the reports that we are discussing today demonstrate that the PAC's message has yet to percolate widely throughout Whitehall. Good practice in one Department too often fails to spread across to others. Examples still abound of projects on which taxpayers' money is wasted because of poor planning, and of lessons from past failures not being learned.
	The PAC's report on Operation Telic identified worrying mismanagement that exposed troops in Iraq to increased risk as a result of inadequate supply of important equipment. We heard this afternoon about the notorious case of the Ministry of Defence's purchasing eight Chinook HC3 helicopters for some £250 million, only to find that they were unusable. The report described this as
	"one of the worst examples of equipment acquisition that the Committee has seen".
	In its report on asylum decisions, the National Audit Office estimated that up to £500 million could have been saved if the Home Office had been able to put in place sufficient staff and infrastructure to meet the significant rise in asylum applications in 1999 and 2000. Sadly, we are all too well aware that a recurring theme in the PAC's deliberations is IT projects that go horribly wrong. In the most recent of many reports on this issue, the PAC expressed concern that the systems set up by the Government to prevent procurement disasters, such as the gateway review process, are too often overridden. A case study in how such projects can go wrong is set out in the PAC's damning report on the Criminal Records Bureau, and in its report on the transfer of GCHQ computers. The cost of that transfer was initially estimated at some £41 million; it eventually rose to nearer £450 million.

Theresa Villiers: I agree, and my hon. Friend makes the point very well. It is particularly important that Government Departments heed the PAC's advice to act commercially and ensure that they look at a wide range of providers. One problem with IT procurement is that only a very few firms are competing for large Government contracts.
	Another theme returned to time and again by the PAC, and which was referred to by its Chairman today, is the disadvantage arising from complexity in the provision of public services. As well as being more expensive to run, the more complex the process is, the more likely it is that mistakes will be made. The PAC has estimated that rectifying errors costs the Department for Work and Pensions £1 billion every year. But looking at the financial cost of rectifying errors is to understate the human cost in terms of frustration and upset. All Members see that frustration daily in our constituency postbags.
	A recent and disturbing example of the problem was explored by the Committee's report on tax credits. It states that the complexity of the tax credits system is one of the major causes of the problems that we have witnessed over the past few months. Complexity means that customers and officials find it hard to understand the system, which increases the number of mistakes that they make. It also makes it more difficult to rectify the mistakes once they are made, and increases the opportunity for fraud—a point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
	Recent developments have shown just how serious the problem is, with the Government forced to shut down their on-line applications systems because of large-scale identity fraud involving the names of thousands of workers at the Department for Work and Pensions and Network Rail.
	The Committee also noted that the way that the system was structured contributed to significant problems even where no mistakes were made. The system of provisional awards routinely overpays customers—a major factor in the crisis that means that many of the very poorest families are suddenly subject to demands to repay large sums of money. As a result, MPs and citizens advice bureaux have been inundated with distressing complaints from people forced to take desperate measures to repay the money that they owe. That very disturbing example provides a graphic illustration of how the work of the PAC goes beyond dry matters of Government spending and statistics and touches on real lives and hardship.
	Further examples of how complexity can hinder the efficient provision of public services were highlighted in the Committee's report on regional policy. For example, it found that, in the Thames Gateway area, a multiplicity of different organisations were responsible for regeneration. The Committee wisely advised that the Government should have a presumption against establishing new institutions and new tiers of bureaucracy unless it was clear that policy objectives could not be achieved through existing bodies.
	The Committee also noted the severe difficulties faced by organisations in the regions that have to grapple with many different funding streams—in the south-east, there are no fewer than 40 such streams. Much of that complexity results from the complexity of EU schemes, which brings me to another PAC report on the EU budget.
	The House is well aware that, for the past decade, the EU's own auditors have refused to sign off on their accounts—a shocking fact when compared with the exemplary standards of scrutiny demonstrated in the UK by the NAO and PAC. However, one of the biggest roadblocks to cleaning up the EU's accounts is the complexity of its agricultural support and regional aid programmes, which gives rise to high levels of fraud, error and maladministration. Only when the EU heeds the advice of the PAC and many other bodies and radically streamlines and simplifies its regional aid and agriculture programmes will there be any real hope that, one day, we will be able to ensure that every euro of the EU budget is properly accounted for.
	Another telling example of where complexity and bureaucracy get in the way of the efficient delivery of public services is revealed by the Committee's work on transport. When it looked at rail services, it established that the process for introducing new trains involved no fewer than 60 key stages. From my own constituency work, I know how difficult it can sometimes be to get things done on our rail network. It took many years of campaigning to get one of my local stations renovated. On the day that it was formally reopened, a cast of thousands from all the multiple different organisations that had to be involved in the project was in attendance.
	I hope that Government, Opposition and all those working in the rail industry can strive to put in place some of the Committee's recommendations for streamlining and simplifying how we run this crucial part of our transport infrastructure. I am sure that we would all agree that an efficient public transport network is vital for our international competitiveness and for the quality of life of our constituents.
	The Committee also had invaluable advice in relation to the PPP for the London Underground. It expressed concern at the complexity of the structures put in place to operate the tube, and of the process by which PPP contracts were concluded. The deal took five years to conclude and transaction and consultancy costs soared to a staggering £455 million. The resulting contracts are opaque and difficult to understand. Many of my constituents complain to me almost daily of the dire performance of the Northern line, but the complexity of the PPP structures makes it very difficult to hold those responsible for the tube to account. Whether one asks the Government, the Mayor or Tube Lines, somehow the fact that my constituents cannot get to work in the morning is always somebody else's fault and somebody else's problem.
	One of the striking aspects of the work of the PAC is the wide range of areas that it looks at. It is not just the computer overspend disasters; it looks at a whole range of areas. It has done some extremely valuable work on health, of which today's publication of a report on cancer is merely the most recent example. The Committee can claim much credit for pushing the issue of hospital-acquired infection right to the top of the political agenda. It is one of a number of areas in which the Committee's work has stretched over many years and several reports. Back in 2000, the Committee expressed its concern that the NHS had little grip on the problem or the measures needed to tackle it. Worryingly, returning to the subject four years later, the Committee commented that the response to its earlier report had been patchy and that there was still a distinct lack of urgency on several key issues, such as ward cleanliness. Let us hope that the recent political attention devoted to this issue will mean that the PAC's next report on this matter will have better news for NHS patients.
	Lastly, I should like to look briefly at the Committee's valuable work on the Government's programmes on HIV/AIDS. In its thoughtful and considered report on this issue, the Committee recommended that greater priority should be given to tackling the social and economic aspect of the epidemic. The report details the devastating impact the disease is having on the work force of many developing countries, impairing its ability to cope with the epidemic and to run public services or a functioning economy.
	Yet between 1997 and 2003, only 1 per cent. of DFID's country-level spending was focused on this issue. Perhaps more seriously, the Committee noted that the priority given by the Government to their HIV/AIDS projects was not reflected in the spending of the multilateral agencies funded by DFID. In particular, the Committee discovered that, at the time of reporting, only £19 million of the £1 billion contributed by DFID to the European Commission was spent on programmes related to HIV/AIDS.
	In recent months, tackling the epidemic has rightly shot up the international political agenda. I hope, therefore, that there is now a much higher awareness of the importance of this issue among the multilateral organisations with which DFID works. However, it is frustrating to read the evidence given to the Committee from senior officials and experts in the area who freely admit that aid is spent more wisely and effectively if it is spent directly by the UK Government rather than via an international intermediary such as the European Commission. In the light of the conclusions of the report and the urgent need to tackle the AIDS epidemic, there seems to me to be a very strong case to ask DFID to reconsider the level of funding that it deploys via the EU and switch far more of its resources to programmes that it administers directly or via NGOs. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will agree that the priority here must be saving lives rather than EU sensitivities.
	I imagine that HIV/AIDS is a subject that has never been raised before in a debate on the Public Accounts Committee, but I make no apology for doing so. I have chosen this topic to end on for two reasons. First, the significant amount of money now being devoted to such programmes must be effectively scrutinised. We must all be well aware of the difficulties of ensuring that aid for developing countries is effectively and wisely spent. Secondly, I highlight this issue because of the pressing need to tackle an epidemic that has seen 65 million infected and 20 million dead from the disease in the last two decades. I am pleased that the PAC found time in its busy schedule to address this humanitarian crisis. I pay tribute to the Committee's work on this issue and on all the other high-quality reports that we have had the honour to consider this afternoon, and it is with great pleasure that I commend them all to the House.

John Healey: We have had a very good debate this afternoon, led by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but with a further nine excellent contributions. It is my privilege to respond on behalf of the Government.
	The Public Accounts Committee makes a special contribution to our system of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. The Government, especially the Treasury, share several common interests with the Committee and the National Audit Office. We have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers' money is used economically, efficiently and effectively, and we want to see the delivery of public services to a high standard, with both the public and private sector working well together and applying the best practices and standards of management and skills.
	We see, from the prolific series of reports that the PAC produces and from the contributions to the debate this afternoon, that the PAC does not pull its punches. But however critical, the Committee mostly operates without being politically partisan. That remains one of its traditional strengths as Parliament's leading inquisitor and champion in challenging the Executive. It is rightly tough on Departments and agencies. Accounting officers sensibly take any appearance before the PAC more seriously than almost any other aspect of their responsibilities.
	For those reasons, I pay tribute to the work of the PAC members and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Gainsborough who is starting his sixth year as its Chairman. I wish also formally to recognise and pay tribute to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff at the National Audit Office in supporting the Committee. I also wish to add a word of appreciation for Brian Glicksman, for his hard work and his dedication to the Committee. He retired recently after being the Treasury Officer of Accounts for six years and he told me recently that he has appeared before the Committee almost 150 times.
	I wish also to welcome the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), who delivered her first speech at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. It was very accomplished and a good contribution to the debate. We look forward to many more appearances, as I am sure she does herself. Based on some of the reports before us, she urged us to look forward not only to the challenges of trying to tackle the problem of HIV/AIDS, but to the Olympics. However, she raised some words of caution on that score. I may say that in my experience, there is an unprecedented effort going into putting in place arrangements for good project management in preparation for the Olympics. I am sure that the PAC will follow those developments closely, as will the hon. Lady as shadow Chief Secretary. We in the Treasury will certainly follow closely the work of the various bodies responsible for preparing for and delivering the Olympics.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough drew attention to the Committee's 17th report. I have to say that this is something of a tour de force, encapsulating as it does a decade's worth of the Committee's experience and conclusions. It helpfully draws those together in seven coherent themes which he set out for us this afternoon. Each one contains some potent pieces of advice for the Government. Although in each case the Government are already taking action, the Committee shows us that there is considerable scope to improve in the future. We are studying the report carefully and we will respond point by point within the customary two months. The hon. Gentleman has been able, in a timely way, to use the debate to lay stress on the particular observations to which the Committee wants us to pay close attention.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several other important issues. As he acknowledged, we are taking the opportunity afforded by the Company Law Reform Bill to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to become eligible to audit non-departmental public bodies that are companies, as well as their subsidiary companies. By doing that, we are fulfilling a major commitment that we made in response to Lord Sharman's report on audit and accountability in central Government. I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman described himself as delighted by the move. The Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry was helped in no small way by the close co-operation of the National Audit Office as the policy and detailed proposals were developed into the firm plans that are now in the Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive a smooth passage through both Houses.
	The hon. Gentleman pressed arguments that he has made before on making the BBC subject to the audit arrangements of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Government are evaluating the existing arrangements for the audit of the BBC. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the NAO already has a role. It seems appropriate to do that evaluation as part of the charter review and we are thus considering whether any further changes are warranted.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what had happened regarding the financial management of the European Union following the publication of the Committee's 18th report. He would have heard Ministers say that a key priority of the UK presidency was to ensure that progress was made on the European Commission's initiative of a road map towards what it called an integrated internal control framework—the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet might already be familiar with that. The UK co-chaired a panel of experts from all member states that met in Brussels on 21 and 22 September to examine the matters that were raised by the Commission's proposed road map. The outcome of those deliberations provided the basis of the draft conclusions for the meeting of Economics and Finance Ministers on 8 November. The recommendations of the PAC report played an important role in drafting the conclusions that were agreed at that meeting. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked for an assurance that Ministers will continue to press for progress. From this point on, UK officials will be working closely with colleagues from not only Austria, but Finland, to ensure that the action points from the plan are taken forward under those countries' presidencies.
	Although the Liberal Democrats' Front-Bench spokesmen are increasingly thin on the ground these days, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has showed rather more staying power than many of his colleagues. He had already done sterling work from the Front Bench for the Liberals on the Criminal Defence Service Bill earlier today, but he stayed on to speak in this debate, although I must say that he seemed to be speaking for the Liberals from both the Front and Back Benches. I appreciated the fact that he realised that a lot of the work of Government is good, although he sketched out his three specific worries about mismanagement, the misguided application of policy and fraud.
	In a reflective contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) set out several of his worries about trends in population movement and make-up. He also told us clearly the serious social consequences that they can sometimes have. In preparation for the comprehensive spending review, the Treasury is undertaking an analysis of the demographic changes that the country faces in the long term. I will find out whether some of the general points that he made, rather than, perhaps, his specific ones about local authority grant distribution, can be incorporated into that work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made an extremely reflective contribution to the debate and several of her points will be pertinent to the way in which the Public Accounts Committee approaches its work in the future. She expressed an enthusiasm for more timely reports. We share that appetite, so we are glad that the Comptroller and Auditor General has recently undertaken to try to publish some shorter reports that can be more quickly prepared, such as the recent report on MG Rover on which I believe that the Committee will hold a hearing next month.
	I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). It was something of a milestone, as it was his last speech in the House as a single man. We on the Labour Benches wish him and his fiancée Victoria very well for their wedding this weekend. He spoke about the progress that has been made through PFI procurement and recognised the substantial improvement that there has been, with projects delivered on time and within budget, but he also exposed flaws that the Committee has found in specific PFI projects.
	The hon. Gentleman urged me to look closely at the work being led by the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am aware of that work. A meeting of officials in the Treasury is shortly to be held with that group to examine the analysis and conclusions that it has been preparing. I welcome RIBA's contribution to the debate on the design of PFI. We will consider very carefully whether and, if so, how, its proposals can be integrated into the Government's overall procurement policy.
	Undertaking enough design up front during the procurement is already in line with the Treasury's policy. We want to ensure that we have a well enough informed public sector client to manage projects properly, and we need to make sure that they have done enough preparation before launching a procurement. Design is an important part of that, but there will clearly be a trade-off, which must be examined, to ensure that the risk transfer is not jeopardised by undertaking too much of the design before involving the PFI contractor.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) spelled out clearly and convincingly the lessons on good management to be drawn from the private sector, which it is essential that the public sector learn. Her own business expertise before becoming a Member of the House will clearly be a great asset to the Committee. She stressed the importance of good risk management to effective procurement. I am pleased to say that the National Audit Office has complemented the Government's efforts to force home the message that risk management should be embedded in departmental planning, just as she urged, by collaborating with us in the Treasury to publish a guide which we call "Good Practice in Tackling External Fraud".
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) demonstrated from the Conservative Benches the fresh talent that is being brought to the PAC, although the points that he raised about the cost of changes in the tax credit system relate to the recent hearing, on which the PAC has not yet published its report. He has the answers now, and no doubt he and his colleagues will make a judgment on those and the report will reflect that.
	The hon. Gentleman also touched on the problems of the NHS trust in his constituency, and on NHS trust finances more generally. I remind him that three quarters of local NHS organisations are balancing the books or in surplus. I remind him also that the Secretary of State for Health recently announced what she calls decisive action to turn round the minority of NHS organisations that have significantly overspent their budgets. It remains the case that the Government will have trebled investment in the NHS by 2008, and that throughout the country, including in the hon. Gentleman's area, we can see that that investment means extra doctors and nurses, improved quality of treatment and shorter waiting lists for that treatment.